106 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Lemonwizard wrote...

I can't tell if you're restating my point in a way that makes a correct assertion with faulty logic or if you're making fun of me in a way too subtle for me to understand.

I subtly restate my own point that your not liking Zaeed is based on his renegade attidude. Which is also the reason I like him more than other good guys in this game.

[Lemonwizard]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

I can't tell if you're restating my point in a way that makes a correct assertion with faulty logic or if you're making fun of me in a way too subtle for me to understand.

I subtly restate my own point that your not liking Zaeed is based on his renegade attidude. Which is also the reason I like him more than other good guys in this game.

I frankly don't take that perspective seriously purely on the basis that there's plenty of characters with renegade attitudes (and not just in Mass Effect, either) that I do like quite a bit. That said, one thing I don't like about his renegade attitude is that he doesn't seem to have a reason for it beyond being grumpy and not giving a damn, which I hardly think makes for a compelling character.


This again depends on your definition of "renegade" and whether you consider it to be more of an idealism vs. cynicsm scale as opposed to a good vs. evil scale.

[Zulu_DFA]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

I can't tell if you're restating my point in a way that makes a correct assertion with faulty logic or if you're making fun of me in a way too subtle for me to understand.

I subtly restate my own point that your not liking Zaeed is based on his renegade attidude. Which is also the reason I like him more than other good guys in this game.

I frankly don't take that perspective seriously purely on the basis that there's plenty of characters with renegade attitudes (and not just in Mass Effect, either) that I do like quite a bit. That said, one thing I don't like about his renegade attitude is that he doesn't seem to have a reason for it beyond being grumpy and not giving a damn, which I hardly think makes for a compelling character.


This again depends on your definition of "renegade" and whether you consider it to be more of an idealism vs. cynicsm scale as opposed to a good vs. evil scale.

Well, yes, I do believe that paragon/renegade scale is more about idealism/cynisim than good/evil. The devs told us on multiple occasions, that Shepard is good, period. Which by extension means that all of his companions are good.

As to the compellingness of a cynic character who doesn't give a damn... I find it much more compelling than an idealist in the position of a fighting man. I believe, that it's possible (however unlikely) to be a successful idealist if you have a lot of money at your disposal... But if the only thing you got is ammo, well, the only difference you can make is where your bullets go. Maybe you can start as an idealist, but after some time you'll put your ideals in a small box, then you bury it somewhere. And by the age of Zaeed you'll forget where you've buried it.

[casedawgz]

We see Zaeed light a guy on fire and slowly walk away as he explodes. The "Cool Guys Don't Look At Explosions" theorem thus dictates Zaeed's cool guy status.

[Jack Package]

ZOMG DOOD DONT HATE ON ZAAED HE IS BADASS AND AWESOME!!! AND DONT SAY TALI IS NOT BEST CHARACTER EVAR oh I just can't do it. Trolling an intended troll-thread... too much.

Not everyone read the whole first post here, could it be?

[Lemonwizard]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

I can't tell if you're restating my point in a way that makes a correct assertion with faulty logic or if you're making fun of me in a way too subtle for me to understand.

I subtly restate my own point that your not liking Zaeed is based on his renegade attidude. Which is also the reason I like him more than other good guys in this game.

I frankly don't take that perspective seriously purely on the basis that there's plenty of characters with renegade attitudes (and not just in Mass Effect, either) that I do like quite a bit. That said, one thing I don't like about his renegade attitude is that he doesn't seem to have a reason for it beyond being grumpy and not giving a damn, which I hardly think makes for a compelling character.


This again depends on your definition of "renegade" and whether you consider it to be more of an idealism vs. cynicsm scale as opposed to a good vs. evil scale.

Well, yes, I do believe that paragon/renegade scale is more about idealism/cynisim than good/evil. The devs told us on multiple occasions, that Shepard is good, period. Which by extension means that all of his companions are good.

As to the compellingness of a cynic character who doesn't give a damn... I find it much more compelling than an idealist in the position of a fighting man. I believe, that it's possible (however unlikely) to be a successful idealist if you have a lot of money at your disposal... But if the only thing you got is ammo, well, the only difference you can make is where your bullets go. Maybe you can start as an idealist, but after some time you'll put your ideals in a small box, then you bury it somewhere. And by the age of Zaeed you'll forget where you've buried it.

I appreciate the concept of an idealism/cynicism scale, but do not believe that it's what has been implemented in Mass Effect. There's plenty of renegade decisions that are cynical or pragmatic or of the "ends justify the means" line of thinking that I can respect and see the logic behind, but they're peppered through a sea of racism, excessive violence, and being an **** for no apparent reason. Of course, that just applies to Shepard.




Returning to the character of Zaeed, while somebody who doesn't give a damn is a character I find believable, it's not a character I find particularly interesting. I'm more drawn to the "fundamentally good, but more realistic than to expect idealism is going to work" sort of a character, which ultimately is what I like about Garrus. Zaeed, on the other hand, is poorly developed as we're given absolutely no insight as to what made the guy who he is, or why he became a mercenary. He has an interesting background but it's missing a beginning. While all the stuff he's done (or had done to him like Vido's betrayal) is certainly enough to make a person pissed off and cynical, I got the impression from the way he told the story that he's always been pretty much that way. Again, we're talking wasted potential here. We hear about all sorts of stuff he did but very little about why he did it. Zaeed, I think, is the character we get to see the least of in terms of what makes him tick.


If he made a return in ME3 a great deal could be done with him, but I don't think it has been done yet.

[SirEmilCrane]

Lemonwizard wrote...

*wall fo text snip*

No one said you could talk, jackass

Anyway, I like Zaeed, he's a morally ambigious thug who kills people, thats all I need from him

[Lemonwizard]

If I stopped talking whenever people didn't want me to talk, I'd practically be mute.

[SirEmilCrane]

Lemonwizard wrote...

If I stopped talking whenever people didn't want me to talk, I'd practically be mute.

That was a joke

[Lemonwizard]

SirEmilCrane wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

If I stopped talking whenever people didn't want me to talk, I'd practically be mute.

That was a joke

I know that it was.

[SirEmilCrane]

Lemonwizard wrote...

SirEmilCrane wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

If I stopped talking whenever people didn't want me to talk, I'd practically be mute.

That was a joke

I know that it was.

Well this is awkward
Anyway, like I said, I have no problems with Zaeed, he's a good character

[Lemonwizard]

Don't consider it awkward. You'll come to recognize my behavior on the internet is "snarky until I think I might have found a legitimately interesting discussion".

[Tlazolteotl]

Lemonwizard wrote...

The creation of morality as a social construct is the result of the entire society being pragmatic is what I meant.

The creation of morality as a social construct is the result of humans being a retarded species.
In exactly the same way as domestic dogs behaving a lot like retarded wolves. That is, domestication stunts their intellectual growth at the level of puppies, forever. They need someone to tell them what to think.

So no. Morality is not pragmatic. It's the exact opposite .. a crutch for the stupid.
Unfortunately, since the species is stupid, it can't be helped.

[Lemonwizard]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

The creation of morality as a social construct is the result of the entire society being pragmatic is what I meant.

The creation of morality as a social construct is the result of humans being a retarded species.
In exactly the same way as domestic dogs behaving a lot like retarded wolves. That is, domestication stunts their intellectual growth at the level of puppies, forever. They need someone to tell them what to think.

So no. Morality is not pragmatic. It's the exact opposite .. a crutch for the stupid.
Unfortunately, since the species is stupid, it can't be helped.

I would contend that as a species we can progress more quickly in an organized civilization than we could in an anarchic state. And, what is necessary for such an organized civilization to exist and function is a degree of control. That control is enforced via law, and laws are based upon the concept of morality, which was originally conceived as a way to try and deter individuals from breaking the law before adequate force existed to maintain such a rule without morality.


I personally believe everyone should define their own beliefs and actions and not prescribe to what others say just because others say it, but in this respect definitions of morality are already skewed. Killing is described as immoral but such doctrine is generally disregarded when the act is performed in self defense.


Some form of order needs to exist, as it's a simple fact of life that if people are able to get ahead by ignoring a system's rules, many of them will do so. If people want to call the reasoning behind this order morality, I do not see how it's relevant.

Modifié par Lemonwizard, 04 mai 2010 - 04:14 .

[Arawn-Loki]

And in the first place, he earned his place in ME2 solely by the virtue of his character (in-game background, combat skills and a deal with TIM), while Tali has all the in-game reasons not to be on the crew (space gipsy, useless in combat, and hates Cerberus) but makes her way there by sheer metagame force of the vocal fanbase demand.

Are you referring to story or combat? Combat wise, I don't think a character with Combat Drone can be useless. Unless you are an Engineer yourself. Storywise, Tali has every reason to be there.

Modifié par Arawn-Loki, 04 mai 2010 - 04:17 .

[Lemonwizard]

Arawn-Loki wrote...

And in the first place, he earned his place in ME2 solely by the virtue of his character (in-game background, combat skills and a deal with TIM), while Tali has all the in-game reasons not to be on the crew (space gipsy, useless in combat, and hates Cerberus) but makes her way there by sheer metagame force of the vocal fanbase demand.

Are you referring to story or combat? Combat wise, I don't think a character with Combat Drone can be useless. Unless you are an Engineer yourself. Storywise, Tali has every reason to be there.

Combat drone can be a godsend for distracting enemies on insanity mode, and while Legion is generally the superior provider of it thanks to his widow and being much less squishy with geth shield boost, he's obtained so late in the game that Tali can be very helpful through many levels of the game.



Of course, she's pretty useless on veteran and below because everybody and their mother has way better killing powers than her and once enemies cease being dangerous combat drone's utility vanishes.

[Tlazolteotl]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

The creation of morality as a social construct is the result of the entire society being pragmatic is what I meant.

The creation of morality as a social construct is the result of humans being a retarded species.
In exactly the same way as domestic dogs behaving a lot like retarded wolves. That is, domestication stunts their intellectual growth at the level of puppies, forever. They need someone to tell them what to think.

So no. Morality is not pragmatic. It's the exact opposite .. a crutch for the stupid.
Unfortunately, since the species is stupid, it can't be helped.

I would contend that as a species we can progress more quickly in an organized civilization than we could in an anarchic state. And, what is necessary for such an organized civilization to exist and function is a degree of control. That control is enforced via law, and laws are based upon the concept of morality, which was originally conceived as a way to try and deter individuals from breaking the law before adequate force existed to maintain such a rule without morality.


I personally believe everyone should define their own beliefs and actions and not prescribe to what others say just because others say it, but in this respect definitions of morality are already skewed. Killing is described as immoral but such doctrine is generally disregarded when the act is performed in self defense.


Some form of order needs to exist, as it's a simple fact of life that if people are able to get ahead by ignoring a system's rules, many of them will do so. If people want to call the reasoning behind this order morality, I do not see how it's relevant.

Order vs anarchy is an irrelevance, here.
Wolves have an organised society, complete with social strata and negotiations.

Order has merit.
Pacification through ignorance is not order.

Rules have merit.
Morals do not.

See, rules say if X happens, Y happens. That's why it's a rule.
Morality says if X happens, feel bad about it. That's why it's stupid.

[Pacifien]

So if I've got this right, Zaeed is a waste of a squadmate because you don't like his attitude and think he's useless in combat. But if someone were to say they did like his attitude and found him useful in combat, the counterargument fails because they suffer from "Tali syndrome."

If you were looking for any form of debate, that makes zero ****ing sense. Or you were trolling for responses, and I mean that in the ancient Internet vernacular and not the modern-day sense of the word.

I like Zaeed. And I found him useful in combat.

[Lemonwizard]

On the contrary, I believe the practical function of morality is "If you do X, this is the reason we'll do Y to you". Ultimately, I do not believe that the reason why people engage themselves in behavior conductive to the functioning of society is relevant as long as they do it.





And, indeed, by your own reasoning that morality does not have merit, would you not also agree that a person's motivations are secondary in importance to their actions?





A person who doesn't do something because they'd feel bad about it as compared to a person who doesn't do something because they logically reason it would not be in the best interests of society, ultimately, is still not doing precisely the same thing.

[Lemonwizard]

Pacifien wrote...

So if I've got this right, Zaeed is a waste of a squadmate because you don't like his attitude and think he's useless in combat. But if someone were to say they did like his attitude and found him useful in combat, the counterargument fails because they suffer from "Tali syndrome."
If you were looking for any form of debate, that makes zero ****ing sense. Or you were trolling for responses, and I mean that in the ancient Internet vernacular and not the modern-day sense of the word.
I like Zaeed. And I found him useful in combat.

Not sure if you were paying attention but I specifically stated that I was the one who was suffering from Tali syndrome for hating Zaeed.

[Pacifien]

Lemonwizard wrote...
Not sure if you were paying attention but I specifically stated that I was the one who was suffering from Tali syndrome for hating Zaeed.

So you're saying you don't like Zaeed because other people do in a manner disproportional to his actual usefulness and characterization, which you deem to be not much of either. In which case, stating he is of actual use or of interesting character will be deemed disproportionate to your experience. Which is subjective.

I see Zaeed get dismissed frequently for lacking a dialogue wheel. Nevermind how he works as a squadmate or his own characterization. Dialogue wheel, dude. If we're talking about clouded perceptions due to fan vocalness, perhaps I fail to see the obnoxious Zaeed zealots out of some sense of pity that the character would be dismissed so trivially by so many.

It would probably be easy to find zealous fans in any thread that specifically names the object of their interest anyway. It couldn't be as simple as not liking the character because you genuinely don't like the character, it has to be the fans' fault.

I like Tali. I used to like her more before I actively participated on the forums, though.

[Lemonwizard]

Pacifien wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...
Not sure if you were paying attention but I specifically stated that I was the one who was suffering from Tali syndrome for hating Zaeed.

So you're saying you don't like Zaeed because other people do in a manner disproportional to his actual usefulness and characterization, which you deem to be not much of either. In which case, stating he is of actual use or of interesting character will be deemed disproportionate to your experience. Which is subjective.

I see Zaeed get dismissed frequently for lacking a dialogue wheel. Nevermind how he works as a squadmate or his own characterization. Dialogue wheel, dude. If we're talking about clouded perceptions due to fan vocalness, perhaps I fail to see the obnoxious Zaeed zealots out of some sense of pity that the character would be dismissed so trivially by so many.

It would probably be easy to find zealous fans in any thread that specifically names the object of their interest anyway. It couldn't be as simple as not liking the character because you genuinely don't like the character, it has to be the fans' fault.

I like Tali. I used to like her more before I actively participated on the forums, though.

Alternatively, you could try reading my entire post and noticing that I already noticed I was being irrational and dismissed this line of reasoning halfway through.

[Zulu_DFA]

Yes, it's kind of unclear why Zaeed left he Alliance... Obviously, not everyone is lucky enough to be selected for spectre candidacy. And Zaeed thought it's a sound idea to make a good business in the private security sector. Which ended for him quite abruptly...



As to the ongoing morality dispute, how about morality precedeing law, religion, and even sapience itself? And to no great wonder, because the simplest definition of the term "morality" and quite well fitting its translation from Latin is "way of life".Thus morality is not a socila construct, but a natural thing, coming hand in hand with the social instincts of the upstanding ape called ****** sapiens.

[Lemonwizard]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Yes, it's kind of unclear why Zaeed left he Alliance... Obviously, not everyone is lucky enough to be selected for spectre candidacy. And Zaeed thought it's a sound idea to make a good business in the private security sector. Which ended for him quite abruptly...

As to the ongoing morality dispute, how about morality precedeing law, religion, and even sapience itself? And to no great wonder, because the simplest definition of the term "morality" and quite well fitting its translation from Latin is "way of life".Thus morality is not a socila construct, but a natural thing, coming hand in hand with the social instincts of the upstanding ape called ****** sapiens.

Well, while this is purely my own conjecture and I'm unsure if there's any real science to support it, I always imagined emotion as an evolved tendency of the brain to react strongly to certain situations. For example, most parents feel very strongly protective of their children, which is something that can be very clearly seen as an instinct that natural selection would favor. Parents who were not predisposed to risk their own safety to protect their children likely did not have young reach adulthood and pass on their genes as frequently. Similarly, the emotion of fear serves a very clear purpose: animals faced with dangerous predators who did not feel compelled to GTFO usually got eaten.


I've also read that the reason alot of people are so angsty and clique-forming in high school is because of the natural instinct to need to be accepted within the group as an individual approaches maturity, because while this is no longer the case in modern society, thousands of years ago, any human who was not part of a group (not so much a clique as a tribe in those days), your chances of survival were pretty slim.


I could see a potential justification that such emotions as guilt over damaging the life or livelihood of other humans is similarly beneficial in that those with no compunction against doing so would be expelled from their bands and not able to survive on their own.


But of course, all that would necessitate a much more comprehensive knowledge of the past than I possess, so I can't profess this idea with any real conviction. Just speculation.

Modifié par Lemonwizard, 04 mai 2010 - 06:00 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Lemonwizard wrote...

But of course, all that would necessitate a much more comprehensive knowledge of the past than I possess, so I can't profess this idea with any real conviction. Just speculation.

You don't need to go back in the past. Any zoologist studying contemporary chimps or baboobs would tesify, that our presumably civilized social organization owes much more to the instict and much less to intelligence, than commonly perceived.